Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Clock speed or cache?

Last response: in Systems
Share
April 26, 2007 9:54:06 AM

I have a question for you's peoples...Which of the following would you go for?

1. E6600 oc'ed to 333 core clock with 667MHz RAM to match (Corsair XMS C4)

2. E4300 oc'ed to 400 core clock with 800MHz RAM to match (Corsair XMS C4)

They're both about the same price. Only difference is the E6600 has 4MB of cache, but the E4300 has the higher clock speed (same multiplier for both, I think).

Also, on a side note, how noisy would either setup be on the stock cooler? I was planning on getting the Zalman CNPS9700 cooler, as it looks kind of cool and should run quiet, but I'll save the money if it's not that much quieter than the stock cooler.

More about : clock speed cache

April 26, 2007 12:41:29 PM

Quote:
Neither! C2D isnt all that to me. Mine runs everything maxed just fine. Some folks just follow like puppies I guess.


Isn't it follwed like sheep?

Sheep or puppies, they're buying C2D for a reason: it's better.

I'd get the 4300, the extra cache makes a negligable difference. That said, either one is going to be blazing fast and you'll likely not notice the difference.
April 26, 2007 1:04:53 PM

Quote:
Also, on a side note, how noisy would either setup be on the stock cooler? I was planning on getting the Zalman CNPS9700 cooler, as it looks kind of cool and should run quiet, but I'll save the money if it's not that much quieter than the stock cooler.


You will need this cooler if you really want to OC well at all. Stock cooler does its job and maintains adequate temps at stock, but if you push it beyond stock it heats up quite rapidly in comparison to a solid aftermarket cooler. At 400x9 you will need an aftermarket cooler also, I don't know how reasonable 3.6GHz on a E4300 is... most seem to be getting in the 3.2 range.
Related resources
April 26, 2007 1:16:39 PM

Yes, Don't expect 3.6Ghz on the E4300.
In fact, it's a stretch with any of the C2Ds.

You may be able to get it, but realize it most cases it will take serious voltage increases and serious cooling.
April 26, 2007 1:17:08 PM

Just OC the E6600 to 400 FSB.
April 26, 2007 1:49:32 PM

ok, cools. I would oc the E6600, but that'd still be pushing on 3.6, plus, I couldn't afford the 800MHz RAM to go with it. I think I'll just go with the E6600 and 667 RAM then. It'll be a fairly comfortable overclock.
April 26, 2007 2:24:00 PM

Good stuff!
April 26, 2007 4:45:38 PM

Quote:
ok, cools. I would oc the E6600, but that'd still be pushing on 3.6, plus, I couldn't afford the 800MHz RAM to go with it. I think I'll just go with the E6600 and 667 RAM then. It'll be a fairly comfortable overclock.


You won't be disappointed. If you loosen the latency on the DDR2 667 you should be able to get it to DDR2 800 speeds, but not all RAM can, especially value memory. It is just another factor to keep in mind.
April 26, 2007 9:42:59 PM

I wasn't planning on getting value RAM. Going for Corsair XMS C4 stuff. In fact, I'm thinking I might now get the E4300, oc it to 333MHz core clock matched to 667MHz Corsair XMS and then use the cash saved to boost my system up to an 8800GTX.

Also, I was originally going to get the NZXT Lexa case with the Zalman 9700 CPU cooler as it looks cool and is quiet. But, I'm now thinking about getting an Antec P180 with a Noctua UH12F CPU cooler to go ultra quiet. What do you guys think?
April 26, 2007 9:54:34 PM

Sounds like you have thought things out and will make a real sweet rig. You should be able to O/C that high but YMMV
April 26, 2007 10:15:23 PM

1) Go with the Noctua. Take a read:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Cool-Quiet-HSF-...

2) I saw some dude hit 4.0 on a 4300...insane!! Probably just finished the benchie before it blew up haha

All things being equal, the 6xxx will hit much higher clocks than the 4xxx chips, and at lower volts too. That's why they cost more: cuz they're better.
April 26, 2007 10:24:49 PM

Quote:
1) Go with the Noctua. Take a read:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Cool-Quiet-HSF-...

2) I saw some dude hit 4.0 on a 4300...insane!! Probably just finished the benchie before it blew up haha

All things being equal, the 6xxx will hit much higher clocks than the 4xxx chips, and at lower volts too. That's why they cost more: cuz they're better.


E4300 is made from the same process as the 63/6400 just binned lower.

I've seen a 4300 north of 4.5GHz. :wink:

Anand's Review 8)
April 27, 2007 12:04:23 PM

Yeah, the 4300 seems the choice as it's mainly a gaming rig and I'd rather have the 8800GTX. I'm going to wait till after my exams to build this anyway (June 2nd is last one), so AMD might finally have the R600 out to help drop the prices (and I've heard that Nvidia will release the 89xx cards at the same time).

The Noctua is definately quiet, but I'd be happy with the Zalman as I don't plan to go above 3.0GHz. The Zalman/NZXT combo is about the same price as the Noctua/Antec combo, so I'm gonna go with the Zalman/NZXT, as I prefer the look and from what I've read and heard, it's still pretty quiet.
April 27, 2007 12:28:19 PM

the 89xx cards are coming late June.
April 27, 2007 12:29:37 PM

Cool cool, cheers for that Proof. Don't think I'll wait till then, as I want some gaming action after exams :p 
April 27, 2007 1:22:26 PM

The nutshell version of speed vs cache in 2 lines:



Speed ALWAYS trumps cache, provided the speed boost can overcome the small performance loss of lower cache.

At similar speeds, more cache is the booster.



Lesson??

Get the speed as high as possible and it'll beat more cache. But if you want every ounce of performance, get more cache then OC the snot out of it.
April 27, 2007 1:27:56 PM

I have E6600 clock at 400Mhz but turned the multiplier down to x8, giving 3.2GHz stable.. paired with DDR2 800MHz RAM on a 1:1 ratio ... this baby flies!

Use stock cooler with auto speed disabled.. temp remains around 41c full load.. with minimal sound. However I am planning on getting a ninja scythe at some point soon
April 27, 2007 4:23:18 PM

What are you using to get those load temps? Those aren't consistent with normal intel stock cooler temps.
April 27, 2007 5:16:35 PM

that is a very low full load temp. even with a TT or TR 120 X you should be getting the high 40s or low 50s on that OC. What is the vcore?
April 27, 2007 5:24:07 PM

Quote:
that is a very low full load temp. even with a TT or TR 120 X you should be getting the high 40s or low 50s on that OC. What is the vcore?


I don't know but I am calling BS. Load temps anandtech gets with the stock cooler at stock performance on a X6800 are 56c, it idles at 41c and that isn't using Intel TAT either.

Anandtech's Cooler Chart
April 27, 2007 5:26:21 PM

Don't bother with the Ninja, there are much better options out there:

-Thermalright 120 Ultra/Extreme
-Tuniq Tower
-Thermaltake Big Typhoon
-Zalman 9700
-Noctua NH-U12F

Of those, the best performance/price/quiet is the Thermalright and Noctua. Sheer performance is Tuniq and Thermalright. Sexiest is the Zalman. All around is the Thermaltake.

Ninja is highly overrated, I know because I've tested it head-to-head with other HSF's....it's seen its day, but now there are much better solutions on the market.
April 27, 2007 5:30:13 PM

I also don't like the Ninja because it's stupidly heavy (and that's an issue for me as I go to LANs and also travel between home and uni).
April 27, 2007 5:42:24 PM

Quote:
that is a very low full load temp. even with a TT or TR 120 X you should be getting the high 40s or low 50s on that OC. What is the vcore?


I don't know but I am calling BS. Load temps anandtech gets with the stock cooler at stock performance on a X6800 are 56c, it idles at 41c and that isn't using Intel TAT either.

Anandtech's Cooler Chart

yeah. the vcore required would make that proc run much hotter.
April 28, 2007 12:06:17 AM

Apologies meant 41c at idle not full load.. long day in work :oops: 

vcore 1.36v
April 28, 2007 12:23:54 AM

Quote:
Apologies meant 41c at idle not full load.. long day in work :oops: 

vcore 1.36v


Ok, that I believe. :D 
April 28, 2007 1:49:55 AM

I would go w/ E4300 OC'ed cause its cheaper. Too bad you cannot OC it to 400. See this thread for OCs people have actually gotten. Seems like most are getting about 350 FSB x9 = 3.2 GHz.
April 30, 2007 4:36:35 AM

i did the same thing :D 

my idle temps are floating around 40c-43c idle, 54c load on nvidia monitor.. i can't get core temp to run on vista 64 :x

but, err, for maximized performance, the 4mb cached conroes are the way to go, as tech sites saw the difference the cache makes at stock level, much less oc'ing. and now you have the e6x20, which provide the 4mb cache at a lower price point than the e6600/e6700, still with good oc'ing potential.
!